Ethics question

[Surlethe]

To be honest, I never had a great deal of respect for the rich to begin with. I never understood the reverence that people had for them. Half these assholes inherited their wealth and a good proportion of the rest made shitloads from doing activities which are pretty much worthless (See Tiger Woods, George Bush, Paris Hilton and almost the entire finance industry).

Here's a thought. See if you can find some information that breaks down the wealthy into (a) worthless activities vs worthwhile activities and (b) those who came from wealthy families vs. middle-class families vs. poor families. That would be a useful contribution. Throwing out annoyingly vague generalizations upon which you base your respect for an entire group of people is not particularly helpful.

[Darth Wong]

To be honest, I never had a great deal of respect for the rich to begin with. I never understood the reverence that people had for them. Half these assholes inherited their wealth and a good proportion of the rest made shitloads from doing activities which are pretty much worthless (See Tiger Woods, George Bush, Paris Hilton and almost the entire finance industry).

Here's a thought. See if you can find some information that breaks down the wealthy into (a) worthless activities vs worthwhile activities and (b) those who came from wealthy families vs. middle-class families vs. poor families. That would be a useful contribution. Throwing out annoyingly vague generalizations upon which you base your respect for an entire group of people is not particularly helpful.

Even without statistics, I think one can confidently say that there are no rich people out there who are forced to take a second job in order to make ends meet. Therefore, the idea that "wealthier = harder-working" seems to me to be highly dubious from the outset, and if anyone is required to present evidence, the people who promote that particular idea should be the ones to do it.

[Surlethe]

That's certainly fair. I would suspect, but have no data to support, that there are two broad types of wealthy people: upper-middle/lower-upper class workaholics and people living on massive investment interest. My gut says there are more of the first than the second, but my brain says that I should stop right there until I manage to find some statistics

[ArmorPierce]

I guess that would depend on what you define as upper class. Most sociologists define 'upper class' as top 1% or less of the population. At this level of wealth, I'd imagine that the majority of their income/wealth is inhertiance, investment interest, top athletes, top celebrities and top celebrities.

[Mayabird]

I would still think that the labor of said workaholics that make themselves rich would be a bit different (less soul-crushing drudgery) than someone who's working three shitty jobs just to survive, even if it ends up being the same number of hours worked. The workaholics at least have prospects of moving up and building on their work and probably get some sort of enjoyment or pride or something out of it and don't have the same fear hanging over them.

[Darth Wong]

That's certainly fair. I would suspect, but have no data to support, that there are two broad types of wealthy people: upper-middle/lower-upper class workaholics and people living on massive investment interest. My gut says there are more of the first than the second, but my brain says that I should stop right there until I manage to find some statistics

Even what we consider to be "upper class workaholics" aren't necessarily "hard working"; they are just considered workaholics because they put in a lot of hours. Hours matter, of course, but I've spent hours in high-level business meetings where most of the people said almost nothing the whole time, and when people did speak, it was often half-assed opinion with no particular research behind it. And at the end of the meeting, nothing was resolved except that they should have another meeting. For this, everyone stayed late, their wives and friends were suitably impressed by their immense work ethic, and yet, the bottom line is that everyone basically sat around scarfing sandwiches and chit-chatting about work for hours. I was a student at the time, and I was only in these meetings because I was taking notes for my boss, who was too lazy to do it himself. The whole experience did not exactly fill me with respect and admiration for the work ethic of upper-level management.

I have to wonder: how many high-level execs are like this? Everyone thinks they work their asses off because they spend a lot of time at work, but a surprisingly large amount of that time is utter bullshit. Hell, there was an exec down the hall who used to literally kick back, put his feet up on the desk, and reserve large blocks of time (much longer than the break time allotted to normal employees) to (illegally) smoke cigars in his office in the afternoon. If some guy did that at McDonald's, he'd be fired. Who's really the harder worker?

[Oskuro]

Oh, but the responsability, Mike, the responsability! It weighs them down so much!

The justification I've often been presented with is that since the work these people do moves more money, it is thus more respect-worthy than a lowly drone at a cash register, even if most of it is spent at meetings and taking naps. Heck, this argument was used when I questioned the obscene amounts of money soccer players make around here!

[ArmorPierce]

While I don't disagree with anything that's been said thusfar, I'd like to remind everyone that suffering *IS* relative to the individual. Trauma is related to the objective things that happen, yes, but the psychological effect and thus the suffering is purely about the mind responding to it. A beverly-hills chick with a hangnail may well be suffering just as much as an athlete with a torn ACL - though the amount of "pain" is not the same.

Similarly a millionaire miser who has attached is self-worth and life's work to his earnings and finds himself working for $100k a yr may well be suffering more than someone earning a fraction of his income. . .and conversely a man making $30k/yr who takes a $5k/yr paycut may well feel that same 'suffering' more than the millionaire despite the orders of magnitude difference in the actual amount of money lost.

As far as who deserves your sympathy? That's a different story. But don't kid yourself that the rich spoilt brat isn't suffering just because he "ought to be able to deal with it". To flip it onto yourself, have you ever said 'man I'm starving?'. Unless your socioeconomic situation is much worse than I'd imagined this statement would be greeted with *zero* pity from folks living in underpriviledged countries that are LITERALLY starving to death.

I think Darth Wong's reference from Saving Private Ryan said it best: "griping goes up the chain of command, not down."

I'm not sure why you're flipping it on me. I am not stating that they don't feel down about going down from 200K to 100K, I stated that I don't feel sympathy for it. Also, it seems that you have failed to read my other posts where I stated that I understand someone living in the slums in a third world country may not have any sympathy for a 'poor' person in a first world country.

Furthermore... whilst I never have been in danger of starving to death, I have gone through times where do to my economic situation, there were days where I barely ate at all.

On the responsibility point. I remember before the current financial crisis, the justification being used for their income was the enormity of the responsibility and the fact that they were making the firm money. Come financial crisis and they are still making incredible amount of money. So what is the justification now? They seem to make crazy amount of money regardless of whether they are making the firm money or losing it.

And yes, it's easy to be a workaholic when your job consists of hanging out in a air conditioned or heated room sitting at a comfortable chair and getting up and taking a walk at your liesure.

[Mayabird]

That's certainly fair. I would suspect, but have no data to support, that there are two broad types of wealthy people: upper-middle/lower-upper class workaholics and people living on massive investment interest. My gut says there are more of the first than the second, but my brain says that I should stop right there until I manage to find some statistics

Even what we consider to be "upper class workaholics" aren't necessarily "hard working"; they are just considered workaholics because they put in a lot of hours. Hours matter, of course, but I've spent hours in high-level business meetings where most of the people said almost nothing the whole time, and when people did speak, it was often half-assed opinion with no particular research behind it. And at the end of the meeting, nothing was resolved except that they should have another meeting. For this, everyone stayed late, their wives and friends were suitably impressed by their immense work ethic, and yet, the bottom line is that everyone basically sat around scarfing sandwiches and chit-chatting about work for hours. I was a student at the time, and I was only in these meetings because I was taking notes for my boss, who was too lazy to do it himself. The whole experience did not exactly fill me with respect and admiration for the work ethic of upper-level management.

I have to wonder: how many high-level execs are like this? Everyone thinks they work their asses off because they spend a lot of time at work, but a surprisingly large amount of that time is utter bullshit. Hell, there was an exec down the hall who used to literally kick back, put his feet up on the desk, and reserve large blocks of time (much longer than the break time allotted to normal employees) to (illegally) smoke cigars in his office in the afternoon. If some guy did that at McDonald's, he'd be fired. Who's really the harder worker?

I suspect it's more an American thing than, say, Japanese, considering in Japan they have an actual medical term for people who drop dead from overwork. Japanese companies also tend not to massively overpay their executives while presumably getting a lot more actual work out of them. There is a moral in there somewhere, I think.

[ArmorPierce]

I also take issue with the seemingly assertion that being a 'workaholic' would be the main thing in becoming 'rich.' The number 1 indicator for a person's income is their parent's income. So yes, most rich people are from rich families, most middle class people is from middle class families and most poor people are from poor families. Barriers to upward mobility in social class is a-plenty.

[K. A. Pital]

To flip it onto yourself, have you ever said 'man I'm starving?'.

Yea. Also, it's not a question of "have you ever". It's a question of HAS HE EVER. And if he hasn't, why the fuck should I even care?

Suffering is not relative, it's absolute. If you go hungry or malnourished, that's not relative. If you do without clean or hot water, that's not relative. If you have no house where to live, that's not relative. Those are absolute indicators of suffering.

Don't go preaching to me about the happy starving beggar and the crying oligarch losing his a-millions. I hate this crap. It's fucking useless bullshit subjectivism.

[Bakustra]

To flip it onto yourself, have you ever said 'man I'm starving?'.

Yea. Also, it's not a question of "have you ever". It's a question of HAS HE EVER. And if he hasn't, why the fuck should I even care?

Suffering is not relative, it's absolute. If you go hungry or malnourished, that's not relative. If you do without clean or hot water, that's not relative. If you have no house where to live, that's not relative. Those are absolute indicators of suffering.

Don't go preaching to me about the happy starving beggar and the crying oligarch losing his a-millions. I hate this crap. It's fucking useless bullshit subjectivism.

Well, one could argue, then, that most of the American poor have no right to complain and nobody should feel sympathy for them, because at least they're better off than most of Africa. Any attempts to justify feeling sorry for the American poor are useless fucking bullshit subjectivism, since they don't have absolute indicators of suffering like a foot being lost to a landmine, their kids kidnapped to be trained as soldiers, their sister dying from AIDS, etc. Don't go preach to me about the happy mutilated Congolese farmer and the crying American factory worker losing his a-thousands.

This is exactly what Sela was arguing: the majority of the poor in the industrialized world are better off than the majority of people in the unindustrialized world. Simply declaring that the cut-off point is absolutely inherently at x, where x is your definition of rich, ignores the possibility of a Cambodian farmer doing the same thing and declaring he has no sympathy for working-class Americans, because they aren't starving and never have done so for a day in their lives. So why is that any less valid? This is not "you must feel sympathy for the rich", but rather, "suffering is relative", and claiming that there is an objective bar somewhere in the American lower middle class for suffering to become real ignores that the suffering of most poor Americans is far lower than that of most Africans.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, one could argue, then, that most of the American poor have no right to complain and nobody should feel sympathy for them, because at least they're better off than most of Africa. Any attempts to justify feeling sorry for the American poor are useless fucking bullshit subjectivism, since they don't have absolute indicators of suffering like a foot being lost to a landmine, their kids kidnapped to be trained as soldiers, their sister dying from AIDS, etc. Don't go preach to me about the happy mutilated Congolese farmer and the crying American factory worker losing his a-thousands.

Well yeah, how's that a fallacy - note what has been said in this thread so far. Yes, American poor should not complain to Congolese farmers. It would look like a fucking mockery, would it not? They can complain to people who are like them, if they want empathy.

Simply declaring that the cut-off point is absolutely inherently at x, where x is your definition of rich, ignores the possibility of a Cambodian farmer doing the same thing and declaring he has no sympathy for working-class Americans, because they aren't starving and never have done so for a day in their lives.

It doesn't ignore it; it fully takes into account that Third World people might not even feel any inch of sympathy for the average American.

Why the fuck should they? Were I a Third World citizen, why should I have sympathy for Americans? I can't see any realistic reasons. Not even one.

So why is that any less valid? This is not "you must feel sympathy for the rich", but rather, "suffering is relative", and claiming that there is an objective bar somewhere in the American lower middle class for suffering to become real ignores that the suffering of most poor Americans is far lower than that of most Africans

There are objective gouges still. Suffering is not subjective. What you're talking about are different levels of OBJECTIVE suffering.

Objectively, a Congo farmer suffers more than an American. That's objective. Also objectively, the rich never suffer. Not like the Congo farmer, neither like even the average American. So their suffering can be safely said to be neglible on an OBJECTIVE level, neglible compared to BOTH the Congo farmer and the American worker.

The fact that the Congo farmer wouldn't have sympathy for the US worker is irrelevant; neither of them should or would have any sympathy for the American capitalist.

So yes, no one should preach to the Congo farmer about how bad he has it in the USA. But certainly NO ONE should preach to either the Congo farmer or US worker how bad the capitalist has it. He doesn't have it bad. He just does not.

[Channel72]

I have to wonder: how many high-level execs are like this? Everyone thinks they work their asses off because they spend a lot of time at work, but a surprisingly large amount of that time is utter bullshit. Hell, there was an exec down the hall who used to literally kick back, put his feet up on the desk, and reserve large blocks of time (much longer than the break time allotted to normal employees) to (illegally) smoke cigars in his office in the afternoon. If some guy did that at McDonald's, he'd be fired. Who's really the harder worker?

Your characterization of the rich seems to stem mostly from your experiences with wealthy business executives. I'm sure there are countless highly-paid business executives who are essentially worthless, but that doesn't change the fact that there are also many highly-skilled people, such as surgeons, medical specialists, or basically anyone in the field of medicine who owns a private practice, who work ridiculous hours and often make upwards of half a million dollars a year. Certainly these people work harder than your average McDonald's employee.

[Bakustra]

Okay, are you seriously saying that wealth negates any physical or mental trauma that a wealthy "capitalist" (nice way of dodging around the problem of American doctors and scientists tending to fall into the "no-sympathy zone") undergoes? What about somebody that has their legs cut off and their pelvis crushed in an industrial accident? What about somebody whose grandchildren or children die? Oh, whoops, I forgot that the rich don't have any human feelings. Regardless, are these people not suffering? Money can't buy them new family, money can't repair the crushed base of their spine or give them anything beyond a prosthetic if their spinal cord isn't damaged irreparably. Money can't buy off trauma or its memories. What should we do, then? Forcibly take away most of what they've got so we can feel sorry for them? Joke about how their dead children means no possibility of celebrities? Deny that they are suffering at all?

You also seem to be admitting that people's suffering is relative. Someone suffering by American standards is not at all by Guinean standards. So, that means that the wealthy are as capable of suffering as anybody else, unless there is something inherently different about the wealthy as compared to working-class First Worlders that makes a relative comparison of said working-class to the average African invalid. People also have mental suffering beyond the physical, which is not calibrated according to objective measures. So, saying that the wealthy are "incapable of suffering" ignores two factors: the possibility of trauma which their wealth cannot significantly alleviate, and the mental perception of suffering, which is what allows people of all socioeconomic statuses to be happy or miserable. For an "objective measure", you seem to be ignoring two different metrics in your scale.

[K. A. Pital]

Okay, are you seriously saying that wealth negates any physical or mental trauma that a wealthy "capitalist" (nice way of dodging around the problem of American doctors and scientists tending to fall into the "no-sympathy zone") undergoes?

What physical trauma? As for mental trauma, that cannot compare to the physical.

What about somebody that has their legs cut off and their pelvis crushed in an industrial accident? What about somebody whose grandchildren or children die? Oh, whoops, I forgot that the rich don't have any human feelings.

We were speaking about the reduction of income, not suffering unrelated to income. A rich person being tortured is clearly the same suffering as a poor person tortured. I'm not sure why you thought necessary to bring a non-sequitur here.

Regardless, are these people not suffering? Money can't buy them new family, money can't repair the crushed base of their spine or give them anything beyond a prosthetic if their spinal cord isn't damaged irreparably. Money can't buy off trauma or its memories. What should we do, then? Forcibly take away most of what they've got so we can feel sorry for them? Joke about how their dead children means no possibility of celebrities? Deny that they are suffering at all?

I see most of your point flows from the non-sequitur above. The thread discusses if there's a cause for sympathy in a relative income decline, not if their legs are chopped off or kids die.

You also seem to be admitting that people's suffering is relative. Someone suffering by American standards is not at all by Guinean standards.

Not really; there are points where they coincide. An American person who is homeless experiences the same privation of homelesness as the Guinean homeless; perhaps the danger levels are different, but they are, by this metric, similar.

So, that means that the wealthy are as capable of suffering as anybody else, unless there is something inherently different about the wealthy as compared to working-class First Worlders that makes a relative comparison of said working-class to the average African invalid.

Yes; the key here is that they are capable of suffering. But your massive non-sequitur cleverly exchanges the point of discussion - the relative decline of income and whether that causes any sort of suffering that can be sympathized with.

In fact, if legs are chopped off from a rich person and a Guinea farmer, both experience EQUAL suffering. However, when the incomes of a rich person fall, they do not experience any suffering - the suffering is so minor that it can be considered neglible.

For an "objective measure", you seem to be ignoring two different metrics in your scale.

I don't ignore anything; you simply decided to exchange the original question for a more general question of IF the wealthy are capable of suffering.

Of course they are; but the case of income decline is not it. You knocked down a strawman instead of the actual point, which is that a decline of income of a rich person is neglible suffering and thus does not deserve any sympathy from people of the lower classes.

Now, if a rich person is tortured, like I said, anyone would be fine to sympathize with him. He's genuinely suffering and in fact, can be suffering more than the currently alive, but possibly poor Third Worlder who is at the moment NOT tortured. Ergo, it's perfectly reasonable that rich can suffer; what is argued is that when their incomes decline, they do not objectively suffer. It does not begin to impact their objective life metrics (nutrition, homelessness, etc.)

[Surlethe]

Even what we consider to be "upper class workaholics" aren't necessarily "hard working"; they are just considered workaholics because they put in a lot of hours. Hours matter, of course, but I've spent hours in high-level business meetings where most of the people said almost nothing the whole time, and when people did speak, it was often half-assed opinion with no particular research behind it. And at the end of the meeting, nothing was resolved except that they should have another meeting. For this, everyone stayed late, their wives and friends were suitably impressed by their immense work ethic, and yet, the bottom line is that everyone basically sat around scarfing sandwiches and chit-chatting about work for hours. I was a student at the time, and I was only in these meetings because I was taking notes for my boss, who was too lazy to do it himself. The whole experience did not exactly fill me with respect and admiration for the work ethic of upper-level management.

I have to wonder: how many high-level execs are like this? Everyone thinks they work their asses off because they spend a lot of time at work, but a surprisingly large amount of that time is utter bullshit. Hell, there was an exec down the hall who used to literally kick back, put his feet up on the desk, and reserve large blocks of time (much longer than the break time allotted to normal employees) to (illegally) smoke cigars in his office in the afternoon. If some guy did that at McDonald's, he'd be fired. Who's really the harder worker?

Oh, sure. Our inclinations are shaped by our experiences, obviously; my view of "wealthy workaholics" is shaped by my dad, who owns a pain management clinic. While I was growing up, he was putting in doctors' hours and I rarely saw him, even on weekends. While I was a teenager, he worked two jobs, one as a regular anasthesiologist, and one as a pain management physician. Now that he's moved from anasthesia to full time pain management, he has to work as a doctor, do professional development, and manage the business. Even when he's home, he's hiding in his office working.

Mind, I'm not saying you're wrong, just illustrating the differences in how we're inclined to view management, work ethic, and wealth. I wouldn't even be surprised if the execs you referred to were extremely hard workers when they were younger, ambitious and set on moving up the chain of command, and then decided they were done when they made their salary and position goals. Now they think the world owes them and they scrape by doing the minimum required.

[bobalot]

To be honest, I never had a great deal of respect for the rich to begin with. I never understood the reverence that people had for them. Half these assholes inherited their wealth and a good proportion of the rest made shitloads from doing activities which are pretty much worthless (See Tiger Woods, George Bush, Paris Hilton and almost the entire finance industry).

Here's a thought. See if you can find some information that breaks down the wealthy into (a) worthless activities vs worthwhile activities and (b) those who came from wealthy families vs. middle-class families vs. poor families. That would be a useful contribution. Throwing out annoyingly vague generalizations upon which you base your respect for an entire group of people is not particularly helpful.

Actually, I don't have anything to back this up. I shouldn't have posted such unsourced bullshit. My apologies.

[Bakustra]

*snip*

My apologies. I seem to have misinterpreted your posts.

Not really; there are points where they coincide. An American person who is homeless experiences the same privation of homelesness as the Guinean homeless; perhaps the danger levels are different, but they are, by this metric, similar.

There are far more services available to the American homeless in the form of soup kitchens, shelters, and social workers to help people get these services than there are to the Guinean homeless. There is still a massive wealth disparity between the First World and the rest of the world, even at the lowest levels.

[Broomstick]

While American homeless may have more resources than homeless people elsewhere in the world there is the issue of parts of the US having significantly harsh climates. I have encountered a frozen body on the side on my way to work in the morning in Chicago. So, while American poor do have it better than some poor people elsewhere there are by no means without suffering.

[Junghalli]

My personal take on it is I don't think feelings (i.e. sympathy/lack of sympathy) in and of themselves carry ethical weight. What carries ethical weight is actions, because that actually effects the world outside your own head. So the ethical question here would be "is it OK to not want to help people who fall on hard times relative to their old status but are still better off than me". I would say yes, simply because on a triage standard there are probably many people in the world who need your help more.

[Mayabird]

Oh, sure. Our inclinations are shaped by our experiences, obviously; my view of "wealthy workaholics" is shaped by my dad, who owns a pain management clinic. While I was growing up, he was putting in doctors' hours and I rarely saw him, even on weekends. While I was a teenager, he worked two jobs, one as a regular anasthesiologist, and one as a pain management physician. Now that he's moved from anasthesia to full time pain management, he has to work as a doctor, do professional development, and manage the business. Even when he's home, he's hiding in his office working.

Mind, I'm not saying you're wrong, just illustrating the differences in how we're inclined to view management, work ethic, and wealth. I wouldn't even be surprised if the execs you referred to were extremely hard workers when they were younger, ambitious and set on moving up the chain of command, and then decided they were done when they made their salary and position goals. Now they think the world owes them and they scrape by doing the minimum required.

I would point out my first comment that your dad working two jobs as an anesthesiologist and a pain management physician, presumably making shittons of money and knowing he was doing well and having prospects of doing well or better in the future would most likely be less painful than someone working equivalent hours as a minimum wage janitor and short order cook just barely scraping by day to day with nothing more to look forward to than more of that until he died, at best.